Carbon is known to have five unique crystalline structures, including diamond, fullerene (0-D nano graphitic material), carbon nano-tube or carbon nano-fiber (1-D nano graphitic material), graphene (2-D nano graphitic material), and graphite (3-D graphitic material). Other than fullerene, all these materials can be made into a foamed structure.
The carbon nano-tube (CNT) refers to a tubular structure grown with a single wall or multi-wall. Carbon nano-tubes (CNTs) and carbon nano-fibers (CNFs) have a diameter on the order of a few nanometers to a few hundred nanometers. Their longitudinal, hollow structures impart unique mechanical, electrical and chemical properties to the material. The CNT or CNF is a one-dimensional nano carbon or 1-D nano graphite material. However, CNTs are difficult to produce and are extremely expensive. Further, CNTs are known to be difficult to disperse in a solvent or water and difficult to mix with other materials. These characteristics have severely limited their scope of application.
A single-layer graphene sheet is composed of carbon atoms occupying a two-dimensional hexagonal lattice. Multi-layer graphene is a platelet composed of more than one graphene plane. Individual single-layer graphene sheets and multi-layer graphene platelets are herein collectively called nano graphene platelets (NGPs) or graphene materials. NGPs include pristine graphene (essentially 99% of carbon atoms), slightly oxidized graphene (<5% by weight of oxygen), and graphene oxide (≥5% by weight of oxygen).
NGPs have been found to have a range of unusual physical, chemical, and mechanical properties. Our research group was the first to discover graphene [B. Z. Jang and W. C. Huang, “Nano-scaled Graphene Plates,” U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/274,473, submitted on Oct. 21, 2002; now U.S. Pat. No. 7,071,258 (Jul. 4, 2006)]. The processes for producing NGPs and NGP nanocomposites were previously reviewed by us [Bor Z. Jang and A Zhamu, “Processing of Nano Graphene Platelets (NGPs) and NGP Nanocomposites: A Review,” J. Materials Sci. 43 (2008) 5092-5101]. Four main prior-art approaches have been followed to produce NGPs. Their advantages and shortcomings are briefly summarized as follows:
Approach 1: Chemical Formation and Reduction of Graphene Oxide (GO)
The first approach (FIG. 1) entails treating natural graphite powder with an intercalant and an oxidant (e.g., concentrated sulfuric acid and nitric acid, respectively) to obtain a graphite intercalation compound (GIC) or, actually, graphite oxide (GO). [William S. Hummers, Jr., et al., Preparation of Graphitic Oxide, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 1958, p. 1339.] Prior to intercalation or oxidation, graphite has an inter-graphene plane spacing of approximately 0.335 nm (Ld=½d002=0.335 nm). With an intercalation and oxidation treatment, the inter-graphene spacing is increased to a value typically greater than 0.6 nm. This is the first expansion stage experienced by the graphite material during this chemical route. The obtained GIC or GO is then subjected to further expansion (often referred to as exfoliation) using either a thermal shock exposure or a solution-based, ultrasonication-assisted graphene layer exfoliation approach.
In the thermal shock exposure approach, the GIC or GO is exposed to a high temperature (typically 800-1,050° C.) for a short period of time (typically 15 to 60 seconds) to exfoliate or expand the GIC or GO for the formation of exfoliated or further expanded graphite, which is typically in the form of a “graphite worm” composed of graphite flakes that are still interconnected with one another. This thermal shock procedure can produce some separated graphite flakes or graphene sheets, but normally the majority of graphite flakes remain interconnected. Typically, the exfoliated graphite or graphite worm is then subjected to a flake separation treatment using air milling, mechanical shearing, or ultrasonication in water. Hence, approach 1 basically entails three distinct procedures: first expansion (oxidation or intercalation), further expansion (or “exfoliation”), and separation.
In the solution-based separation approach, the expanded or exfoliated GO powder is dispersed in water or aqueous alcohol solution, which is subjected to ultrasonication. It is important to note that in these processes, ultrasonification is used after intercalation and oxidation of graphite (i.e., after first expansion) and typically after thermal shock exposure of the resulting GIC or GO (after second expansion). Alternatively, the GO powder dispersed in water is subjected to an ion exchange or lengthy purification procedure in such a manner that the repulsive forces between ions residing in the inter-planar spaces overcome the inter-graphene van der Waals forces, resulting in graphene layer separations.
There are several major problems associated with this conventional chemical production process:                (1) The process requires the use of large quantities of several undesirable chemicals, such as sulfuric acid, nitric acid, and potassium permanganate or sodium chlorate.        (2) The chemical treatment process requires a long intercalation and oxidation time, typically 5 hours to five days.        (3) Strong acids consume a significant amount of graphite during this long intercalation or oxidation process by “eating their way into the graphite” (converting graphite into carbon dioxide, which is lost in the process). It is not unusual to lose 20-50% by weight of the graphite material immersed in strong acids and oxidizers.        (4) The thermal exfoliation requires a high temperature (typically 800-1,200° C.) and, hence, is a highly energy-intensive process.        (5) Both heat- and solution-induced exfoliation approaches require a very tedious washing and purification step. For instance, typically 2.5 kg of water is used to wash and recover 1 gram of GIC, producing huge quantities of waste water that need to be properly treated.        (6) In both the heat- and solution-induced exfoliation approaches, the resulting products are GO platelets that must undergo a further chemical reduction treatment to reduce the oxygen content. Typically even after reduction, the electrical conductivity of GO platelets remains much lower than that of pristine graphene. Furthermore, the reduction procedure often involves the utilization of toxic chemicals, such as hydrazine.        (7) Furthermore, the quantity of intercalation solution retained on the flakes after draining may range from 20 to 150 parts of solution by weight per 100 parts by weight of graphite flakes (pph) and more typically about 50 to 120 pph. During the high-temperature exfoliation, the residual intercalate species retained by the flakes decompose to produce various species of sulfuric and nitrous compounds (e.g., NOx and SOx), which are undesirable. The effluents require expensive remediation procedures in order not to have an adverse environmental impact.Approach 2: Direct Formation of Pristine Nano Graphene Platelets        
In 2002, our research team succeeded in isolating single-layer and multi-layer graphene sheets from partially carbonized or graphitized polymeric carbons, which were obtained from a polymer or pitch precursor [B. Z. Jang and W. C. Huang, “Nano-scaled Graphene Plates,” U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/274,473, submitted on Oct. 21, 2002; now U.S. Pat. No. 7,071,258 (Jul. 4, 2006)]. Mack, et al [“Chemical manufacture of nanostructured materials” U.S. Pat. No. 6,872,330 (Mar. 29, 2005)] developed a process that involved intercalating graphite with potassium melt and contacting the resulting K-intercalated graphite with alcohol, producing violently exfoliated graphite containing NGPs. The process must be carefully conducted in a vacuum or an extremely dry glove box environment since pure alkali metals, such as potassium and sodium, are extremely sensitive to moisture and pose an explosion danger. This process is not amenable to the mass production of NGPs.
Approach 3: Epitaxial Growth and Chemical Vapor Deposition of Nano Graphene Sheets on Inorganic Crystal Surfaces
Small-scale production of ultra-thin graphene sheets on a substrate can be obtained by thermal decomposition-based epitaxial growth and a laser desorption-ionization technique. [Walt A. DeHeer, Claire Berger, Phillip N. First, “Patterned thin film graphite devices and method for making same” U.S. Pat. No. 7,327,000 B2 (Jun. 12, 2003)] Epitaxial films of graphite with only one or a few atomic layers are of technological and scientific significance due to their peculiar characteristics and great potential as a device substrate. However, these processes are not suitable for mass production of isolated graphene sheets for composite materials and energy storage applications.
Another process for producing graphene, in a thin film form (typically <2 nm in thickness), is the catalytic chemical vapor deposition process. This catalytic CVD involves catalytic decomposition of hydrocarbon gas (e.g. C2H4) on Ni or Cu surface to form single-layer or few-layer graphene. With Ni or Cu being the catalyst, carbon atoms obtained via decomposition of hydrocarbon gas molecules at a temperature of 800-1,000° C. are directly deposited onto Cu foil surface or precipitated out to the surface of a Ni foil from a Ni—C solid solution state to form a sheet of single-layer or few-layer graphene (less than 5 layers). The Ni- or Cu-catalyzed CVD process does not lend itself to the deposition of more than 5 graphene planes (typically <2 nm) beyond which the underlying Ni or Cu layer can no longer provide any catalytic effect. The CVD graphene films are extremely expensive.
Approach 4: The Bottom-Up Approach (Synthesis of Graphene from Small Molecules)
Yang, et al. [“Two-dimensional Graphene Nano-ribbons,” J. Am. Chem. Soc. 130 (2008) 4216-17] synthesized nano graphene sheets with lengths of up to 12 nm using a method that began with Suzuki-Miyaura coupling of 1,4-diiodo-2,3,5,6-tetraphenyl-benzene with 4-bromophenylboronic acid. The resulting hexaphenylbenzene derivative was further derivatized and ring-fused into small graphene sheets. This is a slow process that thus far has produced very small graphene sheets.
Hence, an urgent need exists to have a new class of carbon nano materials that are comparable or superior to graphene in terms of properties, but can be produced more cost-effectively, faster, more scalable, and in a more environmentally benign manner. The production process for such a new carbon nano material requires a reduced amount of undesirable chemical (or elimination of these chemicals all together), shortened process time, less energy consumption, reduced or eliminated effluents of undesirable chemical species into the drainage (e.g., sulfuric acid) or into the air (e.g., SO2 and NO2). Furthermore, one should be able to readily make this new nano material into a foam structure that is relatively conductive thermally and electrically.
Generally speaking, a foam or foamed material is composed of pores (or cells) and pore walls (a solid material). The pores can be interconnected to form an open-cell foam. As an example, graphene foam is composed of pores and pore walls that contain a graphene material. There are three major methods of producing graphene foams, which are all tedious, energy-intensive, and slow:
The first method is the hydrothermal reduction of graphene oxide hydrogel that typically involves sealing graphene oxide (GO) aqueous suspension in a high-pressure autoclave and heating the GO suspension under a high pressure (tens or hundreds of atm) at a temperature typically in the range of 180-300° C. for an extended period of time (typically 12-36 hours). A useful reference for this method is given here: Y. Xu, et al. “Self-Assembled Graphene Hydrogel via a One-Step Hydrothermal Process,” ACS Nano 2010, 4, 4324-4330. There are several major issues associated with this method: (a) The high pressure requirement makes it an impractical method for industrial-scale production. For one thing, this process cannot be conducted on a continuous basis. (b) It is difficult, if not impossible, to exercise control over the pore size and the porosity level of the resulting porous structure. (c) There is no flexibility in terms of varying the shape and size of the resulting reduced graphene oxide (RGO) material (e.g. it cannot be made into a film shape). (d) The method involves the use of an ultra-low concentration of GO suspended in water (e.g. 2 mg/mL=2 g/L=2 kg/kL). With the removal of non-carbon elements (up to 50%), one can only produce less than 2 kg of graphene material (RGO) per 1000-liter suspension. Furthermore, it is practically impossible to operate a 1000-liter reactor that has to withstand the conditions of a high temperature and a high pressure. Clearly, this is not a scalable process for mass production of porous graphene structures.
The second method is based on a template-assisted catalytic CVD process, which involves CVD deposition of graphene on a sacrificial template (e.g. Ni foam). The graphene material conforms to the shape and dimensions of the Ni foam structure. The Ni foam is then etched away using an etching agent, leaving behind a monolith of graphene skeleton that is essentially an open-cell foam. A useful reference for this method is given here: Zongping Chen, et al., “Three-dimensional flexible and conductive interconnected graphene networks grown by chemical vapour deposition,” Nature Materials, 10 (June 2011) 424-428. There are several problems associated with such a process: (a) the catalytic CVD is intrinsically a very slow, highly energy-intensive, and expensive process; (b) the etching agent is typically a highly undesirable chemical and the resulting Ni-containing etching solution is a source of pollution. It is very difficult and expensive to recover or recycle the dissolved Ni metal from the etchant solution. (c) It is challenging to maintain the shape and dimensions of the graphene foam without damaging the cell walls when the Ni foam is being etched away. The resulting graphene foam is typically very brittle and fragile. (d) The transport of the CVD precursor gas (e.g. hydrocarbon) into the interior of a metal foam can be difficult, resulting in a non-uniform structure, since certain spots inside the sacrificial metal foam may not be accessible to the CVD precursor gas.
The third method of producing graphene foam also makes use of a sacrificial material (e.g. colloidal polystyrene particles, PS) that is coated with graphene oxide sheets using a self-assembly approach. For instance, Choi, et al. prepared chemically modified graphene (CMG) paper in two steps: fabrication of free-standing PS/CMG films by vacuum filtration of a mixed aqueous colloidal suspension of CMG and PS (2.0 μm PS spheres), followed by removal of PS beads to generate 3D macro-pores [B. G. Choi, et al., “3D Macroporous Graphene Frameworks for Supercapacitors with High Energy and Power Densities,” ACS Nano, 6 (2012) 4020-4028.]. Choi, et al. fabricated well-ordered free-standing PS/CMG paper by filtration, which began with separately preparing a negatively charged CMG colloidal and a positively charged PS suspension. A mixture of CMG colloidal and PS suspension was dispersed in solution under controlled pH (=2), where the two compounds had the same surface charges (zeta potential values of +13±2.4 mV for CMG and +68±5.6 mV for PS). When the pH was raised to 6, CMGs (zeta potential=−29±3.7 mV) and PS spheres (zeta potential=+51±2.5 mV) were assembled due to the electrostatic interactions and hydrophobic characteristics between them, and these were subsequently integrated into PS/CMG composite paper through a filtering process. This method also has several shortcomings: (a) This method requires very tedious chemical treatments of both graphene oxide and PS particles. (b) The removal of PS by toluene also leads to weakened macro-porous structures. (c) Toluene is a highly regulated chemical and must be treated with extreme caution. (d) The pore sizes are typically excessively big (e.g. several μm), too big for many useful applications.
The above discussion clearly indicates that every prior art method or process for producing graphene and graphene foams has major deficiencies. Thus, it is an object of the present invention to provide a new class of foam material that is thermally and electrically conducting and mechanically robust and to provide a cost-effective method of producing this class of foam.
Humic acid (HA) is an organic matter commonly found in soil and can be extracted from the soil using a base (e.g. KOH). HA can also be extracted, with a high yield, from a type of coal called leonardite, which is a highly oxidized version of lignite coal. HA extracted from leonardite contains a number of oxygenated groups (e.g. carboxyl groups) located around the edges of the graphene-like molecular center (SP2 core of hexagonal carbon structure). This material is slightly similar to graphene oxide (GO) which is produced by strong acid oxidation of natural graphite. HA has a typical oxygen content of 5% to 42% by weight (other major elements being carbon and hydrogen). HA, after chemical or thermal reduction, has an oxygen content of 0.01% to 5% by weight. For claim definition purposes in the instant application, humic acid (HA) refers to the entire oxygen content range, from 0.01% to 42% by weight. The reduced humic acid (RHA) is a special type of HA that has an oxygen content of 0.01% to 5% by weight.
The present invention is directed at a new class of graphene-like 2D materials (i.e. humic acid) that surprisingly can be converted into a foamed structure of high structural integrity. Thus, another object is to provide a cost-effective process for producing such a nano carbon foam (specifically, humic acid-derived foam) in large quantities. This process does not involve the use of an environmentally unfriendly chemical. This method enables the flexible design and control of the porosity level and pore sizes.
It is another object of the present invention to provide a humic acid-derived foam that exhibits a thermal conductivity, electrical conductivity, elastic modulus, and/or strength comparable to or greater than those of the conventional graphite foams, carbon foams, or graphene foams. Yet another object of the present invention is to provide a humic acid-derived foam that preferably has a meso-scaled pore size range (2-50 nm).
Another object of the present invention is to provide products (e.g. devices) that contain a humic acid-derived foam of the present invention and methods of operating these products.